You know that expensive GPS watch you use? Well your smart phone is more accurate..

The gmap pedometer is more accurate than both. Try it on a 400m track, bet you won't be off by even 1 meter. That's at most 4 meters per mile.

The problem is smartphones and especially GPS use cellular data that is expensive. Monthly charges vs a one time payment for GPS watch... I would prefer the GPS Watch.

Look at how close the iPhone 5 is to the foot pod, I think it's in third place.

But yeah, foot pod - way to go. Nike makes those pretty cheap I think and you can tape them to any shoe you want.

Problem Here wrote:

The problem is smartphones and especially GPS use cellular data that is expensive. Monthly charges vs a one time payment for GPS watch... I would prefer the GPS Watch.

Depends on the plan - 28 dollars per month, Android and never go over the limit.

Decent GPS watch $100. Smartphone payment for 12 months ($38x12months) = $456. GPS watch one time payment is superior over any smartphone plan over time.

This is why Lydiards 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, 7/8 is better than pace.

A phone is expensive and bulky. A decent watch is only $100 and small. I'll take the watch.

Runnerdd wrote:

Here's a study on the accuracy of GPS monitoring runs and the iPhone is generally more accurate and consistent than leading sports watches.

http://fellrnr.com/wiki/GPS_Accuracy

Considering the latest iPhone is upwards of $600, I would be very surprised if they weren't comparable to or better than a few watches...

According to the study watches can be off by 30 seconds for a nine minute mile... I don't know what's worse, the inaccuracy or the pace. Would that mean faster paces are more off or less off?

Woo wow wrote:

Would that mean faster paces are more off or less off?

Woo wow wrote:

According to the study watches can be off by 30 seconds for a nine minute mile... I don't know what's worse, the inaccuracy or the pace. Would that mean faster paces are more off or less off?

I think he is talking about instantaneous pace. average lap pace can't be off be that much if the lap is long enough. "current" pace is notoriously hard to measure. It sounds like that's what he wants so a footpod is a good option.

watch fan 2000 wrote:

Woo wow wrote:

According to the study watches can be off by 30 seconds for a nine minute mile... I don't know what's worse, the inaccuracy or the pace. Would that mean faster paces are more off or less off?

I think he is talking about instantaneous pace. average lap pace can't be off be that much if the lap is long enough. "current" pace is notoriously hard to measure. It sounds like that's what he wants so a footpod is a good option.

No, the run pace can be off by 30 seconds per mile on a middle tier GPS watch and 1 mile off on overall distance of a 20 mile run. It's towards the bottom of the study in columns under "pace error' and "distance error".

Problem Here wrote:

The problem is smartphones and especially GPS use cellular data that is expensive. Monthly charges vs a one time payment for GPS watch... I would prefer the GPS Watch.

Not for tracking pace and distance, you don't. You only really need it when you upload, wifi will do just fine.

You look like a hobbyjogger with one on your arm though

Woo wow wrote:

watch fan 2000 wrote:

I think he is talking about instantaneous pace. average lap pace can't be off be that much if the lap is long enough. "current" pace is notoriously hard to measure. It sounds like that's what he wants so a footpod is a good option.

No, the run pace can be off by 30 seconds per mile on a middle tier GPS watch and 1 mile off on overall distance of a 20 mile run. It's towards the bottom of the study in columns under "pace error' and "distance error".

Watch Fan was correct, this article's discussion revolved around current pace, not overall pace. The section you were referring to discussed changes in GPS accuracy vs pace. I think we all know Garmin lies, the important thing is that it lies consistently.